• 0 Posts
  • 69 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 2nd, 2023

help-circle




  • If you want round trip efficiency higher than 30% you need prohibitive quantities of platinum and iridium (with some promising research to maybe replace the iridium with cobalt, making fuel cells about as sustainable as NMC batteries).

    Storing it is also generally prohibitive. Small high pressure vessels have a hard expiry date shorter thna the expected life of a battery, take up more space and cost as much as LFP batteries. By the time you add a fuel cell stack and buffer battery there’s not really any weight saving either.

    Geologic storage is an option, but use cases are limited. Large scale stationary tank storage is also a possibility for industrial chemical use.

    Hydrogen hype is largely a greenwashing and delay tactic by the oil and gas industry.


  • PV energy in low cloud areas is <2c/kWh and dropping 7-10% p.a (a recent UAE ppa was 1.6c).

    Crude oil is presently ~4c/kWh and frequently 6c. Distillates are often over $1/L before taxes or 10c/kWh.

    20% one-way energy efficiency competes with oil. If the catalyst stack is significantly cheaper than water electrolysers it can use curtailed renewables and compete with oil at <10%.

    Won’t replace batteries or electrification, but a solid choice for emergency storage or high capital, low-use assets (like a forklift that gets used twice a week or a bbq).

    >50% efficiency would displace fossil gas with sufficiently cheap catalyst stack.



  • Worse than that. It’s more along the lines of asserting that they are happy with the financial arrangement and “jokes” as per the status quo, and that they stand by him and his decision to advertise their product for money on the “apoplogy” video. They’re making fun of the ones raising the issues, not linus. Even further they’re trying to milk to controversy for attention.






  • This research comes frim the llnl weapons complex: https://wci.llnl.gov/

    There is an international treaty against nuclear arms testing, so as new weapons and platforms are developed there is no way to expose them to the conditiona they’d encounter if they actually had to deploy nuclear weapons (or operate in an environment where they are being used such as trying to take out the other bomber that is on its way to destroy your other city while the first city burns).

    In addition to the enormous military budget, They take large quantities of civilian money via the DOE because they pay lip service to it being “energy research”. This is the part that is objectionable.

    It’s a cool thing, and arguably necessary given we recently got to see what happens when a country bordering Russia gives up its nuclear weapons altogether, but there is little application for energy. It may also see the development of some micro-fusion warhead with no fission component which is technically a nuclear bomb, but nigh-impossible to make if you don’t have the US military budget so they’ll use it anyway and say “nuh-huh!” when anyone objects.

    Either the technology is highly limited in the volume where the reaction is self sustaining, so the machine as a whole will never break even energy-wise, or it is not, and every inertial confinement generator produced is essentially a weapon of mass destruction that the US will never let exist outside of the control of nuclear armed countries.

    There may be some limited application to energy, but it’s a stretch (essentially it would look like asking the US military nicely to come set another bomb off in your artificial geothermal reservoir every few months). It will certainly never be deployed in a non-military mobile application (which rules out most of the use cases where renewables are not strictly superior).



  • Except this one isn’t basic physics research. It’s an end run around nuclear weapons treaties to test how missiles and planes respond to H-bombs going off nearby.

    It could have an energy application (maybe), but given that the targets are ludicrously expensive, the most viable power plant would resemble the attempts in the 60s to use bombs in underground caverns to heat things up and put essentially a geothermal plant on top. Except with a laser detonator rather than a fission one. Chances of making it economically viable or reliable are slim.


  • The amount of energy you can get per m^2 without heating the planet is definitionally the amount you can get by covering a small fraction of the planet with PV. No thermal power generation can beat this.

    Large, inflexible, overly centralised generation is also unable to reach high grid penetration (for example france produces 20-30% of their load from dispatchable sources like gas and hydro even on a summer’s night during the pandemic where demand is <50% of their nuclear fleet’s nameplate capacity)